It’s not that we don’t believe because we think he should follow our rules, it’s that a God with such flimsy, ever-changing morality which falls all over the spectrum from one book to the next is clearly just an invention of the people who were writing about him at the time.
Or, in other words, the unreliability of God’s morals leads inevitably to the realization that this god can’t be the creator of objective morality (if such a thing even exists) considering he can’t even follow his own standards. He’s like a narcissist that thinks every rule applies to others but not himself. If such morality is actually real and objective due to his mere existence, then he wouldn’t be able to break it. Yet he does constantly in the text.
It’s basically “might makes right” on a cosmic scale.
It’s just so blatantly obvious that it was written to whatever moral standard of the day that the author existed in, which is why he goes through a personality change between testaments.
If you have a problem with the idea that God doesn’t monkey-see-monkey-do set a good example as the rationale that God doesn’t exist then you inherently still believe in God. If God exists they are beyond whatever beliefs or rationales you have.
If you don’t believe in God then fine, if you don’t believe in God because they don’t meet your moral code then surprise you still believe in God. If that God exists then it doesn’t care what you think. Either really stop believing in God or stop rationalizing with the giant outside our collective ant farm.
It’s not that we don’t believe because we think he should follow our rules, it’s that a God with such flimsy, ever-changing morality which falls all over the spectrum from one book to the next is clearly just an invention of the people who were writing about him at the time.
Or, in other words, the unreliability of God’s morals leads inevitably to the realization that this god can’t be the creator of objective morality (if such a thing even exists) considering he can’t even follow his own standards. He’s like a narcissist that thinks every rule applies to others but not himself. If such morality is actually real and objective due to his mere existence, then he wouldn’t be able to break it. Yet he does constantly in the text.
It’s basically “might makes right” on a cosmic scale.
It’s just so blatantly obvious that it was written to whatever moral standard of the day that the author existed in, which is why he goes through a personality change between testaments.
Let me put it plainly:
If you have a problem with the idea that God doesn’t monkey-see-monkey-do set a good example as the rationale that God doesn’t exist then you inherently still believe in God. If God exists they are beyond whatever beliefs or rationales you have.
If you don’t believe in God then fine, if you don’t believe in God because they don’t meet your moral code then surprise you still believe in God. If that God exists then it doesn’t care what you think. Either really stop believing in God or stop rationalizing with the giant outside our collective ant farm.
God’s supposed nature is contradictory, therefore he is an invention of humans and doesn’t exist.
Is that easier for you?